Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.comKeil and Delitzsch Commentary - 2 King 13:1 - 13:1
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Reign of Jehoahaz. - Jehu was followed by Jehoahaz his son, “in the twenty-third year of Joash of Judah.” This synchronistic statement is not only at variance with 2Ki 13:10, but cannot be very well reconciled with 2Ki 12:1. If Jehoahaz began to reign in the twenty-third year of Joash king of Judah, and reigned seventeen years, his son cannot have followed him after his death in the thirty-seventh year of Joash of Judah, as is stated in 2Ki 13:10, for there are only fourteen years and possibly a few months between the twenty-third and thirty-seventh years of Joash; and even if he ascended the throne at the commencement of the twenty-third year of the reign of Joash and died at the end of the thirty-seventh, they could only be reckoned as fifteen and not as seventeen years. Moreover, according to 2Ki 12:1, Joash of Judah began to reign in the seventh year of Jehu, and therefore Athaliah, who ascended the throne at the same time as Jehu, reigned fully six years. If, therefore, the first year of Joash of Judah coincides with the seventh year of Jehu, the twenty-eighth year of Jehu must correspond to the twenty-second year of Joash of Judah; and in this year of Joash not only did Jehu die, but his son Jehoahaz ascended the throne. Consequently we must substitute the twenty-second year of Joash, or perhaps, still more correctly, the twenty-first year (Josephus), for the twenty-third.
(Note: On the other hand, Thenius, who follows des Vignoles and Winer, not only defends the correctness of the account “in the twenty-third year of Joash,” because it agrees with the twenty-eight years' reign of Jehu (2Ki 10:36), but also holds fast the seventeen years' duration of the reign of Jehoahaz on account of its agreement with 2Ki 14:1; for 6 years (Athaliah) + 40 years (Joash) = 46 years, and 28 years (Jehu) + 17 years (Jehoahaz) = 45 years; so that, as is there affirmed, Amaziah the son of Joash ascended the throne in the second year of Joash the son of Jehoahaz. But to arrive at this result he assumes that there is an error in 2Ki 13:10, namely, that instead of the thirty-seventh year we ought to read the thirty-ninth year there, according to the edit. Aldina of the lxx. But apart from the fact that, as we have shown above in the text, the datum “in the twenty-third year of Joash” does not harmonize with the twenty-eight years' reign of Jehu, this solution of the difference is overthrown by the circumstance that, in order to obtain this agreement between 2Ki 13:1 and 2Ki 13:14, Thenius reckons the years of the reigns not only of Athaliah and Joash, but also of Jehu and Jehoahaz, as full years (the former 16 + 40, the latter 28 + 17); whereas, in order to bring the datum in 2Ki 13:1 (in the twenty-third year of Joash) into harmony with the emendation proposed in 2Ki 13:10 (in the thirty-ninth year of Joash), he reckons the length of the reign of Jehoahaz as only sixteen years (instead of seventeen). For example, if Jehoahaz reigned seventeen years, supposing that he ascended the throne in the twenty-third year of Joash of Judah, he died in the fortieth year of Joash (not the thirty-ninth), and his son began to reign the same year. In that case Amaziah would have begun to reign in the first year of Jehoash of Israel, and not in the second, as is stated in 2Ki 14:1. - The reading of the lxx (ed. Ald. v. 10), “in the thirty-ninth year,” is therefore nothing but a mistaken emendation resorted to for the purpose of removing a discrepancy, but of no critical value.)
If Jehu died in the earliest months of the twenty-eighth year of his reign, so that he only reigned twenty-seven years and one or two months, his death and his son's ascent of the throne might fall even in the closing months of the twenty-first year of the reign of Joash of Judah. And from the twenty-first to the thirty-seventh year of Joash, Jehoahaz may have reigned sixteen years and a few months, and his reign be described as lasting seventeen years.
2Ki 13:2-3
As Jehoahaz trod in the footsteps of his forefathers and continued the sin of Jeroboam (the worship of the calves), the Lord punished Israel during his reign even more than in that of his predecessor. The longer and the more obstinately the sin was continued, the more severe did the punishment become. He gave them (the Israelites) into the power of the Syrian king Hazael and his son Benhadad כָּל־הַיָּמִים, “the whole time,” sc. of the reign of Jehoahaz (vid., 2Ki 13:22); not of the reigns of Hazael and Benhadad, as Thenius supposes in direct opposition to 2Ki 13:24 and 2Ki 13:25. According to 2Ki 13:7, the Syrians so far destroyed the Israelitish army, that only fifty horsemen, ten war-chariots, and ten thousand foot soldiers were left.
2Ki 13:4-5
In this oppression Jehoahaz prayed to the Lord (יי פְּנֵי חִלָּה as in 1Ki 13:6); and the Lord heard this prayer, because He saw their oppression at the hands of the Syrians, and gave Israel a saviour, so that they came out from the power of the Syrians and dwelt in their booths again, as before, i.e., were able to live peaceably again in their houses, without being driven off and led away by the foe. The saviour, מֹושִׁיעַ, was neither an angel, nor the prophet Elisha, nor quidam e ducibus Joasi, as some of the earlier commentators supposed, nor a victory obtained by Jehoahaz over the Syrians, nor merely Jeroboam (Thenius); but the Lord gave them the saviour in the two successors of Jehoahaz, in the kings Jehoash and Jeroboam, the former of whom wrested from the Syrians all the cities that had been conquered by them under his father (2Ki 13:25), while the latter restored the ancient boundaries of Israel (2Ki 14:25). According to 2Ki 13:22-25, the oppression by the Syrians lasted as long as Jehoahaz lived; but after his death the Lord had compassion upon Israel, and after the death of Hazael, when his son Benhadad had become king, Jehoash recovered from Benhadad all the Israelitish cities that had been taken by the Syrians. It is obvious from this, that the oppression which Benhadad the son of Hazael inflicted upon Israel, according to 2Ki 13:3, falls within the period of his father's reign, so that it was not as king, but as commander-in-chief under his father, that he oppressed Israel, and therefore he is not even called king in 2Ki 13:3.
2Ki 13:6
“Only they departed not,” etc., is inserted as a parenthesis and must be expressed thus: “although they departed not from the sin of Jeroboam.”
2Ki 13:7
“For (כִּי) he had not left,” etc., furnishes the ground for 2Ki 13:5 : God gave them a saviour, ... although they did not desist from the sin of Jeroboam, ... for Israel had been brought to the last extremity; He (Jehovah) had left to Jehoahaz people (עָם, people of war), only fifty horsemen, etc. For הֶחֱטִי instead of הֶחֱטִיא (2Ki 13:6), see at 1Ki 21:21. The suffix בָּהּ in 2Ki 13:6 refers to הַטְּאֹת, just as that in מִמֶּנָּה in 2Ki 13:2 (see at 2Ki 3:3). “And even the Asherah was (still) standing at Samaria,” probably from the time of Ahab downwards (1Ki 16:33), since Jehu is not said to have destroyed it (2Ki 10:26.). וגו וַיְשִׂמֵם “and had made them like dust for trampling upon,” - an expression denoting utter destruction.
2Ki 13:8-9
Close of the reign of Jehoahaz. Jehoahaz had probably shown his might in the war with the Syrians, although he had been overcome.